It is known the use of containers of paper or plastic material, provided with safety systems configured for providing evidence of a tampering of the container itself. These containers, called also “tamper-evident” containers, are configured for enabling to insert products inside them and, then in a first closed condition, enabling the activation of the safety device—in the field the activation of the safety device is generally called as an “arming device” condition—so that, following a first open condition, the container can provide evidence. These systems are generally used in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food fields, in which it is particularly important ensuring the provision of intact products and in compliance with the specifics indicated on the container.
For example, boxes or containers of paper or plastic material which use as “tamper-evident” systems, additional wrappers of plastic material adapted to wrap the whole box to define a substantially further envelope, are known. These boxes exhibit several limitations and disadvantages; de facto, the further packaging appears to be particularly expensive because it provides the use of additional raw materials (an additional plastic film) and requires a high number of steps for sealing the box: additional steps of predisposing and applicating the film. Besides the economical disadvantages caused by the further packagings, these are not capable of providing evidence of a tampering of the pack; de facto, the distributor could easily remove the plastic film for altering or substituting the products in the container and proceed with the sale of this latter without the further safety wrapper by offering to the public only the pack (the unpackaged container).
Further, boxes made of paper or plastic material using, as “tamper-evident” systems, seals and/or labels configured for holding closed the box itself, are known. This last kind of safety system is certainly more efficient than the above described further wrappers because removing the seal would not enable to correctly reclose the box and consequently it would be possible to provide evidence of a tampering of the container to the customer. While these latter described boxes are an improvement with respect to the above described containers with a further wrapper, such boxes are however particularly expensive because they also require additional raw materials represented by the seals/labels and additional steps for predisposing and applicating such elements. For this reason, “tamper-evident” containers of paper material improved with respect to the above described ones, have been made.
A first example, described in the USA patent application US2011/0180537A1, refers to a box completely made of paper material, having a store provided with an opening delimited by a free edge; at such opening there are two opposite lateral tabs rotatingly moveable around the edge. The lateral tabs are configured for rotating inside the store and placing themselves in a partially overlapped condition. Each of said tabs is notched at the store free edge to define a kind of moveable door. Further, the container exhibits a cover engaged with the free edge of the store and interposed between the tabs; the cover is also rotatingly moveable around the free edge and is configured for being positioned above the tabs. Specifically, the cover carries a closure tab adapted to be overlapped on the lateral tabs to define a closed condition of the container; further the cover carries an engagement tab adapted to enter inside the container and to be locked to the lateral tabs for holding said closed condition. The closure tabs exhibit notches defining the doors, which are configured for cooperating with the lateral tab doors. The container provides, as a tamper-evident system, to forcedly fold inside the store the closure tab and lateral tabs doors: the opening of the container causes the breakage of the doors carried by the closure tab.
The container, described in the US application, is an improvement with respect to the above described packaging and sealing systems at least with reference to the product and process costs. De facto, the container described in such application, is entirely made of paper material: the tamper-evident system is formed by paper portions of the closure tab and of the lateral internal tabs. For this reason, the containers, described in the USA application, are more advantageous in terms of costs because they do not provide the use of additional materials (for example coverings of plastic film and/or further labels) and the additional process steps for predisposing and applicating such material. For example, the container, as described in the USA application, exhibits, with respect to the process of forming the standard (non tamper-evident) containers, the additional steps of notching the tabs and a further step of folding the doors inside the store. Naturally, the necessity of executing the additional process steps with respect to the simple implementation of the container (the box without the safety device), provides that also the plant for producing such boxes is provides with additional components destined to perform the required additional steps for predisposing the safety device: therefore the plant requires further toolings. It is evident that, besides the product and process costs, the paper boxes, described in the USA application, will entail further expenses for tooling the plant. It is further useful to detect that the complex structure of the container, besides requiring a particularly tooling of the production plant, requires suitable toolings of the packaging plants dedicated to insert products inside the container and the following closure of the same. De facto, the structural complexity of the above described container, burdens both on the production plant and on the container packaging one with a consequent substantial increase of the costs of the entire packaged product.
A further inconvenience of the described box of the prior USA application, is represented by the tamper-evident system structure, which is easily penetrable; de facto the safety device is positioned on the top of the container and at the box free edge: the safety device itself could be tampered and bypassed at the container opening in order to avoid breaking the doors and therefore without giving evidence of any tampering.
A second example, described in the European patent application EP0519389A1, relates to a box entirely made of paper material exhibiting substantially the same structure as the container described in the first example (USA application). Also such container exhibits a store provided with an opening delimited by a free edge; at such opening there are two lateral tabs opposite to each other and rotatingly moveable around the edge. The lateral tabs are configured for rotating inside the store and being placed in a partially overlapped condition. As opposed to the USA application, each tab exhibits, at the overlapping area with the other tab, a removable portion provided with an undercut. Further, the container exhibits a cover engaged with the store free edge and interposed between the tabs; the cover is also rotatingly moveable around the free edge and is configured for being placed above the tabs. Particularly, the cover carries a closure tab adapted to overlap with the lateral tabs to define a container closed condition; the cover further carries an engagement tab adapted to enter inside the container and to be locked to the lateral tabs for maintaining said closed condition. The closure tab exhibits a notch adapted to define a seat suitable for receiving the undercut of the tabs removable portions. The container provides, as a tamper-evident system, the joint of the removable portions inside the cover seat during the first container closure; the container opening causes the removal portions carried by the inner lateral tabs to be torn.
As per the USA application, the container, described in the European application, is an improvement with respect to the above described packaging and labeling systems at least with reference to the product and process costs. De facto, the container, described in such application, is also entirely made of paper material: the tamper-evident system is only formed by paper portions of the lateral internal tabs (it is not provided the use of an additional material and additional process steps for providing and applying said material). However it is observed that the container, described in the European patent, is an improvement with respect to the first example because the box/container “arming” is done at the first closure of the same, without requiring further steps of notching and folding the box. For this reason, the second example exhibits a manufacturing process faster and more cost-effective than the one described in the USA patent.
However, it is observed that, also the tamper-evident system, described in the second example, is easily bypassable because it is placed on the top of the container; also in this case, it is could be possible to bypass the safety device by tampering the container without causing the breakage of the removable portions (therefore without providing evidence of tampering).
Further, it is noted that all the above described tamper-evident systems are not configured for providing evidence of a container tampering to sight-impaired people; de facto, all the above described systems use, for giving evidence of a first container opening, only a visible device preventing the sight-impaired people to verify the container condition.